Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Americans Support Letting Cities Build Their Own Broadband Networks, Pew Finds (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the more-options-the-better dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Most Americans want to let local governments build out internet service if the internet providers in their area aren't any good, according to the Pew Research Center. In a phone survey of over 4,000 people last month, Pew found that 70 percent of respondents agreed that local governments should have the power to start their own high-speed networks if current offerings are "too expensive or not good enough." The results show an overwhelming support for municipal broadband -- networks that are at least somewhat run by local governments -- at a time when encouraging broadband buildout is a top federal priority. But despite the support, in much of the US, building out municipal networks just isn't possible. More than 20 states have passed laws banning local governments from starting their own broadband service, largely at the behest of internet providers that want to avoid competition at all cost. Though Pew's survey found some positive results for municipal broadband, it found less support for broadband subsidies for low-income homes. Under half of all Americans, 44 percent, said they supported subsidies, while nearly everyone else surveyed said they felt internet service "is affordable enough" that most households should be able to pay for it. (At the same time, nearly half of all people surveyed said they didn't know what speed of internet they received.)

9 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Way overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Broadband should be a utility this day and age.

    1. Re:Way overdue by cb88 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because commercial internet is artificially bad... just so it looks likey they are trying really hard to make it better but in fact are just milking the customer and government for subsidies.

      Municipal interent isn't necessarily "public".... in the sense of free, in fact it almost certainly isn't... but is is cheaper just based on the fact that you are getting what you are paying for rather than than just feeding billions into some guy's pocket.

    2. Re:Way overdue by dryeo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Utility is perhaps the wrong word. Here in Canada, it is considered an essential service, meaning that the private (and public where they exist) internet providers have to provide you internet for a reasonable price if you request it, often with government (Provincial and perhaps Federal as well) often subsidizing the buildout in rural areas.
      In my case, living about 40 miles from Vancouver, there is no cell coverage or cable and the phone lines seem to use rusty barbed wire, so only slow (26.4) dial-up. I was informed last year that my ISP was discontinuing dial-up service as of Nov 16th and suggested I switch to cellular (about $70 for 10 GBs + $150 for a modem). They quit charging me in the new year and froze my profile (big deal, I never touched it) but the dial-up is still working as they can't cut me off as long as I'm willing to pay. Once they finish building the new cell tower (subsidized by the Province so the smart metre will actually not require a meter reader anymore), I'll probably be forced to use it but until then, it's an essential service and they can't cut me off. Too much stuff depends on the internet now. Next year fiber is supposed to show up, once again subsidized by the Province and they'll have to sell it me for the same price as in town.
      It's like electricity and the phone, if you pay, they have to supply it if possible and for the same price. You might only be able to get 110 volt service but that is considered acceptable

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Works for me by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have been on a municipal fiber network for over 10 years and it's been great. A high bandwidth symmetrical connection with a wide choice in ISPs. Previously I had cable internet through Comcast and the network stability, level of service and price have been like night and day. Internet is pretty crucial to living in modern society, it should be treated as a utility and a basic level of service provided to each home by the government. TV, phone and internet service providers still compete for the customer's business, they just do it on a level playing field.

    --

    Enigma

  3. No kidding by quonset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With lower prices, faster speeds and better service, you bet people would want municipal broadband. We've all seen what happens when there is no competition: the U.S. still isn't in the top ten of industrialized nations when it comes to broadband speeds (page 12 of the report).

    I distinctly remember when my area got "competition" in broadband providers. Verizon came in and their CEO proudly stated, "We're not going to compete on price. We'll compete on quality." Well gee, thanks. To whom should I bend over for?

    If Republicans would stop preventing broadband competition we'd be far better off. And before anyone wants to whine about being partisan, go take a look at the places which have outlawed municipal broadband. See the pattern?

    1. Re:No kidding by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      p>If Republicans would stop preventing broadband competition we'd be far better off. And before anyone wants to whine about being partisan, go take a look at the places which have outlawed municipal broadband. See the pattern?

      California, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, Washington, Virginia all voted blue in the last presidential election, and all have some form of restriction or hurdle for municipal broadband. That's about 30% of the states with such regulations. The pattern is that of corporate corruption of politics, which affects both parties but Republicans more. Since you have solidly blue states such as CA and WA in on this, you really can't call it just a Republican problem.

    2. Re:No kidding by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know when you combine our pots, 30+70=100 and 7+17=24, so you're saying the same thing. Also, it's 23 states, not 24, because you counted Washington twice as it shows up in the report table twice.

      You were implying this is somehow a Republican-only problem, which as a Californian, I can confirm that it's not. Since CA has 12% of the US population all by itself, and is D controlled at nearly every level, it's pretty disingenuous to call it merely cherry-picked. Hell in my post I even say that it's mostly a Republican problem ("affects both parties but Republicans more"). However if you must view everything through the lens of "if one party is wrong the other must be right", then I can't help you.

      Besides, raw counts are dumb since 30/50 states voted R, so really we ought condition or even weight by population:
      Voted D: 6/20 = 30%, 49% population-weighted
      Voted R: 17/30 = 56%, 69% population-weighted

      So if you are in a D state, odds are 50/50 that you have restricted municipal broadband. In R states it jumps to almost 70%. What it most definitely is not, in either case, is near zero.

  4. Last mile by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My dream: local governments (or the local power company) run the "last mile" passive fiber to every home. Then any company can apply to come in and start hooking up at the switch boxes. This means new offerings like Google Fiber could hook up quickly, and the old guard can still provide competitive service if they choose to (also dragging them into a fiber-first model). No need to fret over who gets connected at the house level, because you have public oversight at that level, and not having to do the last-mile means there's less incentive to hook up only the rich neighborhoods, because all of them can be done fairly efficiently once you have backhaul. This design also keeps the government from trying to be an ISP, which they aren't really equipped for -- instead they maintain the street-level infrastructure, something they do a lot of already.

    Before telecom deregulation I had a small ISP over Verizon's copper, and (for the time) it was great. The ISP of course got killed off as soon as Verizon was allowed to stop sharing the lines. A decade of stagnation followed. I'd love to see the smallest changes on the public side to make private competition viable, and a municipally owned last mile makes a lot of sense.

  5. Sure, until they actually start talking about it by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being wary of the government is a hallmark of republicans. I think that tends to materialize as being very susceptible to propaganda from business. It was the same for health care, before Obama was elected, Americans seemed to generally like the idea of single payer healthcare depending on how you phrased it. That support evaporated overnight when it started to look like a remote possibility. A the mention of "death panels" a good number of people were suddenly ready to die to protect insurance companies from the evil government.

    Asking people if they like municipal broadband you're going to get yes. Asking them after comcast says "THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE SPYING ON YOU" with "like we do" in fine print? There will be a ton of morons instantly declaring it's an anti-american idea.

    I personally can't fathom why someone would fear the government they can vote in but love corporations they can't even sue, but I've been accused of being an out-of-touch liberal...